Other US Courts

George Zimmerman, the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who killed Trayvon Martin, plans to ask the state of Florida to cover $200,000 to $300,000 of his legal expenses, his attorney told the Orlando Sentinel Monday evening.

Because Zimmerman was acquitted, state law requires Florida to pay all his legal costs, minus the biggest one: the fee that goes to his lawyers.

That includes the cost of expert witnesses, travel, depositions, photocopies, even that animated 3-D video that defense attorneys showed jurors during closing argument that depicts Trayvon punching Zimmerman.

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara said Monday that he would soon prepare a motion, asking Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to authorize the payments.

That motion, he said, “is in the works.”

His office is still collecting numbers, he said, but he estimated the request would total $200,000 to $300,000.

That would be on top of the estimated $902,000 that public agencies already have spent on Zimmerman’s five-week second-degree murder trial that ended July 13.

[…]

For months leading up to the trial, Zimmerman lived in hiding, had no job and lived off donations to his legal defense fund. At one point, he tried to solicit donations by promising each donor a handwritten, signed thank-you note.

Several times in the months leading up to the trial, O’Mara said that defense funds were so low he might be forced to ask the judge to declare Zimmerman indigent, and thus, require the state to pay his legal bills. But that never happened.

This upcoming motion, however, would have the same effect.

It would be based on Florida Statute 939.06, which states that a defendant who has been acquitted is not liable for any costs associated with his case and, if he or she paid anything, they would be due a refund, if approved by a judge or clerk.

The money would come from the Judicial Administrative Commission, the state agency that pays the non-lawyer legal expenses of indigent defendants.

I hope the state of Florida has to pony up every single penny Mr. Zimmerman – via his attorneys – requests. And then some.

If you haven’t watched any post-Zimmerman verdict interview, you really should watch this one. Last night, Sean Hannity interviewed Mark O’Mara and Don West, the attorneys for George Zimmerman, and they discussed the trial theatrics, the media frenzy that got us here, and the rogue prosecution and their potentially unlawful conduct prior to trial.

I have a feeling there will be much more to come on this case from these two, particularly from O’Mara. Sanctions may even be forthcoming against the prosecution – O’Mara alleges withholding of evidence, among other things. We shall see.

BTW, attorney Don West stirred up a hornet’s nest not only with his failed “knock knock joke” to start off the trial with, but also because of his sparring with Judge Debra Nelson as well as “star” prosecution witness Rachel Jeantal. Some find him abrasive and overly blunt, but I think with all the back and forth that has gone on regarding this case, blunt truths about the media, the prosecution and George Zimmerman himself are much-needed. Keep on keepin’ on, Mr. West.

George Zimmerman’s lead defense attorney urged jurors to let the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer “get back to his life” by finding him not guilty of murder or manslaughter in the 2012 confrontation that ended in the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, saying the state prove Zimmerman did anything other than defend himself.

In a low-key and methodical presentation that began early Friday, defense attorney Mark O’Mara urged the all-female, six-member jury to not “fill in the gaps” or “connect the dots,” but to stick to facts. He ridiculed prosecutors for their forceful portrayal of Zimmerman as a wannabe cop who profiled an unarmed teen when he cut through the gated community where Zimmerman lived.

“That is not an unarmed teenager!” O’Mara said, hoisting a chunk of concrete to represent the pavement Martin allegedly bashed Zimmerman’s head against before the fatal shot.

For most of the three-hour presentation, O’Mara’s style was in sharp contrast to the fiery summation delivered by lead prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda a day earlier, in which he forcefully told jurors that Zimmerman’s inaccurate “assumptions” about Martin were responsible for the teen’s death on Feb. 26, 2012. But O’Mara became more emotional toward the end, reminding jurors that even a reasonable doubt in their minds that Zimmerman committed a crime can only mean acquittal.

O’Mara’s summation was followed by the prosecution’s rebuttal, in which prosecutor John Guy told jurors that Zimmerman would have had to have faced deadly force to be justified in shooting Martin. Guy showed a picture of Zimmerman’s scalp and downplayed cuts on it.

“Did that man need to kill somebody? Kill a teenager?

“Did he really need to shoot, did he have to shoot, Trayvon Martin?” Guy asked the jury. “No he did not.”

Pray.

For those who watched the last two days of closing arguments, what did you think?

George Zimmerman’s attorneys have just started the first full day of the case they will present to the jury, and the witnesses who have testified so far are friends of Zimmerman. The defense has said they think they’ll be able to wrap up their case by Wednesday, which means there is a strong possibility the jury will get to start deliberations before the week is out.

After the state rested this past Friday, defense attorney Mark O’Mara made a plea to the judge to dismiss the case under the grounds that the state’s case did not meet the criteria for the 2nd degree murder charge that Zimmerman faces. After about an hour making his case, and a half an hour rebuttal by the state, Judge Nelson quickly denied O’Mara’s request and told the defense to call their first witness. It wasn’t exactly a surprise, as she’s been no help to the defense at all since Day 1 of this trial.

All you really need to know about the state’s case can be summed up in their Friday rebuttal to O’Mara. It was filled with lies and gross exaggerations, which I found particularly disgusting considering a man’s life is on the line here. One lie they told, arguably the biggest, was that a reasonable conclusion to draw from witness testimony is that George Zimmerman started the confrontation. If you’ve been paying close attention to the trial as I have, you’ll know that’s not even remotely true – unless you believe in admitted liar and “friend” of Trayvon Martin Rachel Jeantal. *NO ONE* saw who started the confrontation, and Jeantal was the last person to talk to Martin before everything happened. She has admitted to lies on several issues while on the stand and is not credible, and some have speculated she has been greatly coached by Martin family attorney Ben Crump.

In any event, if you can’t get to a TV, you can follow my Twitter list below of journalists and others who are live-tweeting the trial. A live feed video link is below that.

As everyone knows already, the trial of George Zimmerman in the death of Trayvon Martin started on Monday. I’ve not been able to watch it live but have kept up with it pretty well through a Twitter list of journos and other key players I created. The list is like a virtual play by play of what’s happening, what’s being said, etc at the trial, and reading it you almost feel like you’re there. For those who want to watch it online live, you can do so by visiting WESH.com.

Anyway, the big story of the week so far has been the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel, the young woman who was the last to speak with Martin (on the phone) shortly before he was shot and killed at the Retreat at Twin Lakes neighborhood in Sanford, FL on a rainy night in February 2012. It is her deposition to the state that is the primary basis for their charge of 2nd degree murder against George Zimmerman. In her initial deposition to the state, Jeantel essentially said that Trayvon gave her somewhat of a play by play of what was happening. Zimmerman watching him from his truck. Zimmerman getting out following him. Details of where Trayvon was. And, according to her, Zimmerman confronting Martin – the crucial part of her testimony. The defense, understandably, knows that in order to help create reasonable doubt in this case that it must discredit Jeantel and from what I’ve seen, they’ve done just that. Jeantel, on the first day of cross-examination by the defense, became openly hostile at times after frustration set in over the detailed questioning of defense attorney Don West. At the end of the day Wednesday, she even threatened not to come back – to which the judge told her she’d be the one deciding that.

Jeantel was indeed told she would have to come back Thursday, and by the time it was all said and done, she had testified for nearly 5 and a half hours. The defense discovered some pretty shocking things: 1) That when Jeantel had sat down for her initial interview with the state, Trayvon Martin’s mother Sybrina Fulton was present – highly unusual. 2) As a result, according to Jeantel, that’s why her deposition is different than some of what she has said this week on the witness stand – she didn’t want to offend or upset Martin’s mother. Hmm. 3) When she first spoke with the Martin family and Martin family attorney Ben Crump, she said he had asked her if he thought the shooting was racially motivated, and she said yes. On the tape of this interview, Crump’s question cannot be heard, which has led to questions as to how much of the tape was edited – something the defense understandably wants to get answers to. The defense is trying to show, without saying so, that much of what Jeantel is saying on the stand was coached to her by Crump and Martin family allies. 4) Jeantel admitted lying about the reason why she didn’t attend Trayvon Martin’s wake. 5) She also lied about her name in a letter to Ms. Fulton as well as on the initial phone call, and also lied about her age. Lies adding up lead to a jury wondering if a witness can be trusted to tell the truth about key events.

In fact, many of the state’s key witnesses so far have been more helpful to the defense than to the prosecution due largely to the expert, careful, meticulous questioning of lead defense attorney Mark O’Mara and West. None more so apparent than a state witness who took the stand Thursday afternoon – Jennifer Lauer, a neighbor of Zimmerman’s whose 911 call is the one where the cries for help and then a gunshot can be heard:

Lauer said she was watching television in her living room, with the sliding door open nearby, when she heard what sounded like “sneakers on pavement and grass.”

Later, she heard “grunting” sounds outside that sounded like “wrestling,” Lauer said, adding the sounds seemed to be coming closer and closer to her home. She called 911, and as she talked to a dispatcher, the fatal shot was fired.

During Lauer’s testimony, the state played her 911 call for the jury.

Of the screams, Lauer said: “I couldn’t tell whose voice that was.” She said it sounded like the person screaming was in a life-threatening situation.

After Lauer testified, the jury was led out and she was questioned further. Prosecutors asked her about whether she knew about domestic violence and an arrest from Zimmerman’s past, suggesting that the state believes the defense’s questions opened the door for that testimony.

Lauer was also grilled on whether she follows Zimmerman’s brother on Twitter. She said she didn’t, or at least didn’t intend to; however, an account with her name and photo does follow Robert Zimmerman Jr.

After the social media debate, Lauer was allowed to leave, but told she could be re-called. Within about an hour of leaving the courtroom, the Twitter account had been deleted.

What’s interesting about the questioning of Lauer on her Twitter account – basically trying to discredit her – is that this did not come up BEFORE she testified. Presumably, the state knew this in advance – as the old saying goes, you don’t ask a question of your own witness that you don’t know the answer to – so why bring it up AFTER she testifies? Because she ended up being an excellent witness for George Zimmerman: she said she heard sounds on concrete, which would support the defense’s claim that Zimmerman’s head was bashed into the sidewalk by Martin, she said Zimmerman didn’t look wild-eyed or crazy after the shooting, claims that the back and forth voices she heard ‘moved from sidewalk T-intersection toward her townhouse’ – which would bolster the defense’s argument that Zimmerman was going back to his vehicle but was then approached by Martin. She also stated only ONE person was screaming for help because the “help” sounds were consistently said by the same voice. She also noted house numbers could not be seen clearly in certain parts of the community due to bushes, undercutting the prosecution’s claim that Zimmerman did not need to get out of his truck in order to get a house number for where Martin was located.

This is largely how the state’s week has gone. Witness after witness, under cross examination, ends up saying things that help Zimmerman, Jeantel and Lauer’s respective testimonies in particular. Jeantel because she’s been discredited as an admitted liar, and Lauer because she presumably has no favorites in this game (her Twitter account had no tweets, even though it showed she was following Zimmerman’s brother). She has given the jury a clear accounting of Zimmerman’s demeanor that night, and has described what she heard and some of the neighborhood layout. Another witness, interestingly enough, demonstrated how media bias had impacted her opinion of events that happened that night. According to her testimony, she believed it was Trayvon Martin on the bottom in the struggle between the two, but on cross-examination, admitted she went by the “size” of the bodies and what she had to determine who was who were pictures the mainstream media had published of both Zimmerman and Martin – in particular, the images of Martin as a baby-faced kid.

The best witness for the state so far has been resident Selma Mora, who heard the scuffle, and saw who she claimed was Zimmerman “rider style” on Martin (after the gunshot). She did not see anything until after Zimmerman had shot Martin. She testified late Thursday afternoon and could be called back later.

At some point I suspect we’ll hear from two crucial witnesses for the defense who initially said they saw a man in red on the bottom yelling for help. Things should get reaaaaaaaaaalllly interesting then.

Anyway, just a recap of sorts of what’s gone on this week at the trial, which is currently in its fifth day. As they say, stay tuned.

In issuing its decision, the state’s rights division said keeping the ban in place “creates an environment that is objectively and subjectively hostile, intimidating or offensive.”

Coy’s mother, Kathryn Mathis, said she’s thrilled that Coy can return to school and put this behind her.

The first-grader has been home-schooled during the proceedings

“Schools should not discriminate against their students,” Mathis said. “All we ever wanted was for Coy’s school to treat her the same as other little girls. We are extremely happy that she now will be treated equally.”

“It is a victory for Coy and a triumph for fairness,” said Michael Silverman, the group’s executive director. “This ruling sends a loud and clear message that transgender students may not be targeted for discrimination and that they must be treated equally in school.”

How is it “discrimination”?? COY IS A BOY, not a girl. Born that way. No matter what Coy wants to believe about HIMself, and what his family clearly encourages him to believe. If this child had been born a boy who had girlie parts or vice versa, I could understand the dilemma, but until they become an adult, this is nonsense.

Born biologically a boy, Coy began identifying as a girlafter just a few years, growing her wispy blond hair long, wearing dresses, and telling family and friends they should refer to her as female.

During kindergarten, Coy’s parents informed her school that their child identified as a girl and should be treated as one. Initially, the school, just south of Colorado Springs, agreed.

But a few months into first grade, the district barred Coy from using the girls’ bathroom, telling her parents that as she grew older and developed, some students and parents would likely become uncomfortable. It was best that Coy use staff bathrooms or a gender-neutral one in the school’s health office, the district officials decided.

Furious, the Mathises pulled Coy from school and lodged a complaint with the state’s civil rights division in February, claiming the district had violated Colorado’s 2008 antidiscrimination statute, which expanded provisions for transgender people.

After an investigation, the division, which enforces Colorado’s antidiscrimination laws, agreed. It noted that while Coy’s birth certificate stated she was male — an argument made by the school district — more recent medical and legal documents identified her as female.

It was clear, the state said, that Coy had completely integrated into society as a girl — wearing girls’ clothing, standing in the girls’ line at school and choosing to play with girls.

But the state’s ruling went even further, saying that evolving research on transgender development showed that “compartmentalizing a child as a boy or a girl solely based on their visible anatomy, is a simplistic approach to a difficult and complex issue.”

Depriving Coy of the acceptance that students need to succeed in school, Mr. Chavez wrote, “creates a barrier where none should exist, and entirely disregards the charging party’s gender identity.”

Folks, the lunatics are now running the asylum, and children now officially rule the household. I’m at a loss for words here.

BREAKING: 1st grade children now allowed to determine their gender. They don’t need no stinkin’ birth certificate!

The Orlando Sentinel reports that opening statements are scheduled to start today in the trial of George Zimmerman, who is accused of second degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin:

SANFORD – Jurors will hear opening statements at the George Zimmerman murder trial today, as attorneys for both sides begin telling their version of what happened the night Zimmerman killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a homicide that set of weeks of civil rights rallies.

The six jurors and four alternates seated last week will be presented with starkly contrasting depictions of Zimmerman, 29: The state alleges that he profiled the unarmed teenager, then followed, confronted and killed Trayvon Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford.

Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder, says he fired the fatal shot in self-defense after Trayvon punched him to the ground and began beating him.

When the trial resumes about 9 a.m. today, prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda is expected to present the state’s opening, followed by defense attorney Don West.

Circuit Judge Debra Nelson ruled late last week that the state can use several phrases in opening that Zimmerman’s defense team had argued were too inflammatory: Prosecutors can say Zimmerman was a “wannabe cop,” or a “vigilante,” the judge ruled. They can also say Zimmerman “confronted” Trayvon.

The judge also ruled the state can say Trayvon, a black teen from Miami Gardens, was profiled by Zimmerman, though she instructed prosecutors to avoid the phrase “racially profiled.”

Opening statements come on the heels of a major victory for Zimmerman’s defense: Nelson ruled Saturday that forensic audio analysts the state hoped to call as expert witnesses will not be allowed to testify at trial.

I’ve wrote extensively about the George Zimmerman case last year, but admittedly have not kept up with the legal wranglings that have taken place this year betweeen the prosecution and defense teams. That being said, I believe this post where I detailed facts not widely known about the case, and deconstructed myths concocted by the mainstream media about the case is one you should probably read before the trial gets underway. In particular, what I feel are the two most important facts about this case is that there were two EYEwitnesses, one a young teenage boy and the other a male resident of the apartment complex who both initially told reporters and/or law enforcement that they saw a man in a red jacket getting beat up on the ground underneath another man, and yelling for help. The last I read, the state had managed to get to these two EYEwitnesses by making them think they “couldn’t be sure” of what they saw and heard, but it will be interesting to see if the defense either calls to the stand or brings up these two during the trial.

A member of a pro-Travyon Martin group was unmasked Wednesday as he tried to get on the Florida jury in George Zimmerman’s trial for shooting the unarmed teen.

A white male potential juror identified on his Facebook page as Jerry Counelis gave long, rambling answers about his impartiality when asked basic questions by attorneys.

Counelis, known as panelist E-7, said he was an unemployed painter and musician and had no problem being sequestered if chosen to serve on the jury.

After both prosecution and defense attorneys finished questioning the potential juror, they requested a sidebar with the judge.

Circuit Judge Debra Nelson said she had a question for Juror E-7

She then asked if Counelis posted something to the Coffee Party Progressives Facebook page on March 21 [2012].

Nelson circled something on a piece of paper and handed it to him, and told him to look at it and tell the court if he posted it.

Counelis answered “yes.” This is what he posted:

According to its Facebook page, the Coffee Party Progressives is a group “dedicated to seeking justice for Trayvon Martin.”

On March 21, Counelis wrote on its page that the justice system “needs an enema.”

“In Sanford … & I CAN tell you THIS. ‘Justice’ IS Coming!” he wrote, adding that “with the noise WE made … it couldn’t be covered up.”

There were several other incendiary remarks about Zimmerman and police in Sanford, Fla., where Martin was shot.

With all that in mind, it shouldn’t be a surprise to learn that the man, clearly biased against defendant George Zimmerman, was understandably dismissed from the pool of potential jurors on Wednesday. Well, it was understandable to everyone, it seems, but Counelis himself … who returned to the courtroom on Friday to express his outrage and ended up being escorted out by law enforcement:

SANFORD, Fla. — Channel 9 has learned a potential juror in the George Zimmerman trial who had been dismissed Wednesday returned to the Seminole County courthouse on Friday and had to be escorted out.

The man, referred to only by his juror number, E7, was at the courthouse demanding to know how the defense learned of a website post that got him dismissed earlier this week.

[…]

Once inside the courthouse on Friday, the dismissed juror began to express several concerns about his privacy and his treatment by the court system, so an investigator referred him to the clerk of courts and advised him to seek legal counsel.

Authorities said that’s when the man walked away from the investigator and down to the jury assembly room. There, the officer told E7 he had been dismissed and was not allowed in the jury assembly area or have any contact with any potential jurors until after the trial has concluded.

The deputy clerk of court referred E7 to the clerk’s office, which is when he replied, “Do they know what they are in for?” referring to other potential jurors.

The dismissed juror then went to the Clerk’s Office. When finished, E7 was advised that he was barred from entry to the courthouse until the conclusion of the Zimmerman trial.

[…]

But E7 told Channel 9’s Ryan Hughes on Friday that he simply went to the courthouse to ask court officials to urge the judge to further protect prospective jurors.

“This is all I did, and this is hurting me,” he said about the media attention after his dismissal.

E7 was hoping more information isn’t released by the court in regards to other jurors, saying some media outlets have called him a “stealth juror” who “lied his way on the jury” to find Zimmerman guilty.

He told Hughes he was taken into a holding area and was photographed before officially being barred from the building.

E7 said he was escorted to vehicle as deputies took pictures of his car.

I don’t think I have to tell you that this man was in no way interested in “protection” for panel of citizens on the jury pool. He is a dedicated #Trayvon Martin supporter who hoped to lie his way onto the jury in order to extract his own “justice for Trayvon” but got caught by George Zimmerman’s thorough and diligent defense team before any harm could potentially be done. Now he’s embarrassed and is demanding that the “privacy” of those on the panel be “protected” so they don’t get exposed like he was.

Here’s a tip, Mr. Counelis: If you don’t want to get caught in the act of lying about your opinion on a court case then don’t lie in the first place. Duh.

I’ve been actively involved in debates about this case on social media sites since the story first broke and I can honestly tell you I have not come across a more fanatical, crazed, militant, ill-informed, obtuse, juvenile, ignorant group of people in my life, and that’s saying a lot. Facts mean absolutely, 100% NOTHING to these people, and the conspiracy theories they come up with rival anything the left or right could come up with on any number of issues. In fact, the more agitated types – of which there are a lot – would have been perfectly at home in the late 1800s and early 1900s when lynching was an “acceptable” form of “justice” in the United States. Ironic, especially when you consider that the lynching was taken out on innocent black men denied jury trials because they were assumed guilty based on the color of their skin. Fast forward to now, where a “white Hispanic” is on trial for the killing of a black teenager.

The jury questioning and selection process will continue next week. Please continue to pray for a clarity and peacefulness of mind for all involved in this case, including the prosecution, defense, the judge, the jury – and the families of both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. God knows none of them need any more unnecessary surprises like opinionated jurors who try to worm their way onto the jury.

As the old Tom Petty song goes, ”Don’t come around here no more …”Photo via WFTV 9 News.

At last, justice for some of the many babies “Dr.” Gosnell murdered – and for his adult victim as well. Via Life News:

The jury in the murder trial of abortion practitioner Kermit Gosnell returned a verdict and found him guilty on three of the four first-degree murder charges he faced.

Gosnell was found guilty of killing Baby A, Baby C and Baby D and found not guilty of killing Baby E. He was also convicted on hundreds of lesser charges ranging from infanticide to running a corrupt organization.

The guilty verdict on these three counts subjects the abortion “doctor” to the potential he will face the death penalty when a second jury considers his sentencing on the convictions. At minimum Gosnell will face three life terms in prison. The jury that will be tasked with sentencing Gosnell on the convictions will begin its work on May 21.

Gosnell was also found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the death of patient Karnamaya Mongar, who died after a botched abortion. And he was found guilty on most of the more than 200 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s informed consent law.

In total, Gosnell was found guilty of 21 out of 24 felony counts of illegal abortions beyond the 24 week limit and found guilty on all but 16 of 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law.

One local reporter covering the trial indicated Gosnell “heard verdict passively, with small bitter faced smiles.” A Fox news reporter added, “Our Fox producer in the courtroom says Gosnell looked mad when the verdicts were read.”

Multiple reports indicate an assistant prosecutor sobbed as the verdict was read.

Planned Parenthood applauded the verdict on Monday, saying in a statement that “The jury has punished Kermit Gosnell for his appalling crimes.”

“This verdict will ensure that no woman is victimized by Kermit Gosnell ever again,” said Planned Parenthood spokesman Eric Ferrero. “This case has made clear that we must have and enforce laws that protect access to safe and legal abortion, and we must reject misguided laws that would limit women’s options and force them to seek treatment from criminals like Kermit Gosnell.”

Conveniently left out of their little “statement of support” for the verdicts was the fact that the state of Pennsylvania was derelict in their routine inspection duties for over 15 years on all PA abortion clinics because they didn’t want to face the wrath of the likes of “feminist” groups like Planned Parenthood, who while claiming to make women’s health their number one priority strangely don’t take too kindly to too much state oversight of abortion clinics, you know, because they want the utmost “privacy for the patients” and all that. In fact, the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA admitted they had heard many complaints from women about the horrific conditions of Gosnell’s clinics … but did nothing. Also contra to Planned Parenthood’s bloviations otherwise, Gosnell’s clinic was not an “underground, back alley” clinic but right on the corner in plain view, and as far as anyone knew outside of the Planned Parenthood dupes who did nothing in response to women’s complaints about the clinic, his clinic on the surface from the outside was no different from any other – remember, no inspections had been done there for well over a decade. So it wasn’t technically an “illegal” clinic, either. And there were no “misguided laws” at play here and no woman was “forced” to go to Gosnell because of any alleged “misguided laws.” However, what was in play here was the THE LACK OF ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAWS via routine inspections which we know didn’t happen. Hello? So, no, Planned Parenthood’s statement about “safe, legal access” for abortion rings extremely hollow to yours truly – and it should for you, too.

Blood is on the hands of many here like Planned Parenthood and others who indirectly contributed to the murders of those babies (and countless others we’ll never know about) as well as Ms. Mongar by their militant dedication to reduced oversight for abortion clinics in the name of “privacy.” Most won’t be punished here on earth but will be called to the ultimate account at some point, if you catch my drift.

The question on a lot of minds today in the aftermath of the guilty verdicts was “Should Gosnell get the death penalty”? He’s 72 years old, and with all the charges he was found guilty of – in addition to the murder and manslaughter convictions – he’ll be in jail for the rest of his life. Would administering the death penalty to him at this stage in his life even be worth it? Some argue that a better penalty is for him to spend the rest of his life in prison, thinking about what he did, let the guilt eat away at him. I’m inclined to agree. What do you think?